| name | iros-review-process |
| description | Use when reasoning about IROS peer review — the PaperPlaza Associate-Editor/Editor pipeline, the traditional no-rebuttal single-notification model, how the video and embodied evidence steer reviewers, the 2026 double-anonymous posture, decision criteria for systems papers, and IEEE Xplore proceedings outcomes. |
IROS Review Process
Use this to reason about review-stage strategy. Reopen the current CFP, PaperPlaza instructions, and any
reviewer guidelines before making process claims — IROS review mechanics are set per edition by the
co-sponsoring IEEE/RSJ committee.
Process model
- Submission and review run on PaperPlaza. Papers are handled by an Associate Editor under an
Editor, who assign and synthesize reviews; there is no standing editor-in-chief for the conference.
- Reviewers are embodied-systems researchers. They weigh hardware, task distributions, trial counts,
failure analysis, and sim-to-real honesty at least as much as a clean plot.
- The video is read as evidence: many reviewers watch it before the text, so a weak or misleading
video colors the whole review.
- The 2026 cycle is double-anonymous; author identity should not be inferable from text, figures, or
video.
- Accepted papers go to IEEE Xplore, so camera-ready compliance and the copyright form matter as much
as the initial decision.
The no-rebuttal consequence
IROS has traditionally delivered reviews together with the decision and no author-response phase.
This changes strategy fundamentally: you cannot answer an objection after the fact, so every
foreseeable objection must be pre-answered in the paper and the video. The video functions as the only
asynchronous "rebuttal" a reviewer gets — a shown-and-labeled failure disarms the "did it really work?"
reviewer before they can write it down. Confirm the current cycle's policy before assuming a rebuttal
exists or does not.
Scoring leverage table
| Review dimension | What raises it | What sinks it |
|---|
| Technical merit | A system that integrates cleanly and runs under a real constraint | A component swap dressed up as a system |
| Evidence | Trials, resets, failures, and a stated sim-to-real gap | A hero demo with no counts and no failures |
| Clarity | A system diagram and figures that carry the argument | An argument that needs an appendix IROS does not provide |
| Reproducibility | Hardware ledger, logs, honest availability | "Code coming soon" with no specs |
Stage-by-stage realism
- Submission to notification is a long silence (spring to mid-June in 2026); there is no interaction
to manage, only evidence to preserve for camera-ready.
- Notification arrives with the reviews; with no rebuttal, the lever is the camera-ready revision and
the meta-review's requested changes.
- A single unresolved "I don't believe the robot did this" concern outweighs several resolved clarity
nits, because embodied credibility is the currency here.
Reject-to-next-venue realism
Because IROS is on the fall calendar, a reject can route to the next ICRA, to CoRL, or to an RA-L
submission with revision — decide by the reviews' substance, not by prestige.
Reading a review packet:
[ ] separate "the robot didn't convince me" from "writing unclear"
[ ] list objections that a camera-ready edit can address vs cannot
[ ] note every evidence gap the reviewers named for the next run
[ ] pick the re-route (ICRA / CoRL / RA-L) if rejected, by substance
Output format
[Current stage] submitted / in-review / notified / camera-ready
[Decision actors] <Associate Editor / Editor / reviewers>
[Likely leverage] <integration / evidence / clarity / reproducibility>
[No-rebuttal implication] <what must be pre-answered in paper + video>
[Next move] <camera-ready edit or re-route>
